Alencia Johnson is Director of Public Engagement at Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and Planned Parenthood Action. As many of my readers know, Planned Parenthood has been trying to regain the trust of the Black community due to their own involvement in eugenics and the fact that their own founder, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and directors like Lothrop Stoddard were numerous. Planned Parenthood appointed their first female Black president to quell suspicions of Black Genocide and now Alencia Johnson has allegedly been tasked with doing the same.

Alencia Johnson on ComplexCon 2018

Johnson was on ComplexCon 2018‘s Growth Out of Chaospanel, moderated by DeRay Mckesson, where she discussed PP’s history and began by describing her ideas of how people feel politically.

In one word, the PP Director of Public Engagement claimed that people feel “hopeless” and disrespectfully referred to the President of the United States as “Orangey.”

Alencia Johnson Planned Parenthood Action Facebook

“Kind of hopeless. People feel really hopeless. I think for some of us who are working to dismantle the oppression are hopeful. But, the people that we are advocating for who see this on the news, they feel hopeless. Like, how can we change this? We lost the Supreme Court, we have “Orangey” in the White House, we don’t have a lot of Governors who care about us and people are kind of hopeless,” Johnson began on the Complex Con’s Growth Out of Chaos panel.

WOW – so much in that statement…but…let’s move on.

Alencia Johnson went on to address PP’s eugenics and racist history but, instead of pointing the finger at Planned Parenthood’s own involvement, Johnson claimed “evangelical white men in 60’s and 70’s who were trying to – take back another form of liberation” were to blame.

Margaret Sanger, member of the American Eugenics Society (Image: Maafa21)

She then described those who have actually research and exposed Planned Parenthood’s history in racism and eugenics by using the racist slang: “Hoteps.”

Over the past decade or so, the working definition of “Hotep” has morphed into an all-encompassing term describing a person who’s either a clueless parody of Afrocentricity—think “Preach” from Don’t Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood—or someone who’s loudly, conspicuously and obnoxiously pro-black but anti-progress…

a person might be Hotep, look for the following:

1. a steadfast belief in illogical conspiracy theories

2. an arrogant adherence to respectability politics

3. sexism and homophobia that vacillate from “thinly veiled” to “If being gay is natural, how come there ain’t any gay elephants?”

4. unbowed and uncompromising support for any black man accused of any wrongdoing, even if said man’s guilt is clear

5. ashy ankles

In other words, Young claims that “Hoteps” are not genuinely Black because they oppose reproductive rights, code for abortion on demand or homosexuality – more here:

But, Ryan Bomberger over at the Radiance Foundation described Alencia Johnson’s statement as, “dangerous (rampant) rhetoric that’s become the norm.”

Bomberger’s creative videos and well researched blog posts have been exposing the racist roots of Planned Parenthood and the targeting of abortion towards the African American Community for many years.

Bomberger added, ‘Hotep’ has become urban slang for black people who aren’t “really” black or are parodies of this re-emergent afrocentricity. Hoteps are also black people who are slaves to Christianity.”

Bomberger called the label, “A very racist label that attacks “whiteness” and black folk who are, apparently, mindless fools and can’t think for themselves.”

Alencia Johnson, as a spokesperson for the largest abortion vendor in the nation, Planned Parenthood goes on to claim she wants marginalized people to “live.”

“All the stuff that people like to say about Planned Parenthood and Black folks. First of all, I want Black people, I want Black folks, I want LGTQ folks, I want marginalized folks, the forgotten about folks- to live. And part of that is having access to health care and determining what happens to your body and Planned Parenthood is a resource for that.” Johnson states.

Alencia Johnson on ComplexCon 2018 2

Notice that Johnson completely leaves out the 320K babies that Planned Parenthood “marginalizes” every year through abortion, many who are Black…Or the Black women that have died or shall I say been permanently marginalized by the neglectful treatment they received from Planned Parenthood during their abortions.

Alencia Johnson continued by disputing Planned Parenthood’s eugenics history, but she doesn’t cite any sources despite volumes of evidence that PP was founded in that racist ideolog :

“An so, when people talk about our founding or abortion rights- whatever, I actually just said, ‘Let me study for myself. Get some wisdom for myself, that’s what the Bible taught me. So I said, Let me figure this out for myself.'”

“And, I found that, what is trying to divide people of color from understanding reproductive freedom and owning it were actually, Evangelical white men in like the 60’s and the 70’s who were trying to again, take back another form of liberation.”

Then, Alencia Johnson, as the Director of Public Engagement at Planned Parenthood added:

“And I said, so, I said, I’m not going to let, not only people who don’t look like me or never had my experience but also the Hoteps who believe in this…It’s true. And, you all…know a lot of them…I’m not going to let you all take away a resource that is literally saving people’s lives.”

Hoteps? Seriously?

Listen for yourself:

Johnson, then goes into reasons why people take birth control.

The fact Ms. Johnson leaves out is that Black people who oppose Planned Parenthood do so because PP is the largest abortion provider in the nation, they were founded in eugenics and their founder, Margaret Sanger was a Klan speaker who started the Negro Project to push her population control agenda on the Black community.

Margaret Sanger Autobiography spoke to Klan Planned Parenthood racism

And, instead of racist labels about Sanger being lobbed from PP or Alencia Johnson, Planned Parenthood, with their own history of eugenics, regularly hails Sanger a hero.

If 1 in 5 women visited Planned Parenthood then in 2013 they would have seen between 21,554,197.2 and 32,151,232.6 women alone.

Yet the total patient visits of both males and females to Planned Parenthood for the 2013-2014 year only totaled 2.7 million.

This contradicts what Cecile Richards told George Stephanopoulos in July.

“One in five women in this country depend on Planned Parenthood for healthcare. More than 2 1/2 million every single year,” the Planned Parenthood prez stated. (Approx 3 minutes into the interview)

That statement is far from true.

In fact, Planned Parenthood likes to make slight changes to their figures to keep us confused. The abortion business which has been exposed harvesting aborted baby body parts brags that 1 in 5 women use their services in a lifetime. That is a difficult figure to dispute and and even harder one to disprove. What is a lifetime- how many women each year?

In Planned Parenthood’s 2013-2014 annual report they claim to operate approximately 700 health centers across the U.S. which saw 2.7 million patients in that year.

Using the percentage of males vs. females in the above census that would mean that of the 2.7 million people who visited Planned Parenthood 1,371,330 were female.

If 1 in 5 total females in the United States were to have visited Planned Parenthood in 2013 that would mean that 32,151,232.6 women alone visited them which far exceeds their total patient visits of 2.7 million.

If we break the 1 in 5 numbers down to just females between the ages of 14 to 64 (107,770,986) then 21,554,197.2 females alone would have visited Planned Parenthood in 2013 which again far exceeds their 2.7 million total patient number .

And if we assume that all 2.7 million patient visits to Planned Parenthood in 2013 were female, it would only amount to 2.5% of total females ages 14 to 64 in the United States in 2013 a far fewer amount than the 1 in 5 they tout.

Using slightly different figures from the US Census data of 105,742,712 for females ages 15-64, Ryan Bomberger made the same point in his meme which inspired my post:

Fresh off a stinging courtroom defeat, the national NAACP leadership reveals how little it considers its legacy. They sued an actual black (biracial) man for “harming” its reputation for accurately calling them out on their radical support for abortion. But a white woman pretending to be black, who generated hate and bitterness over false “hate crimes” reports, who stole a full scholarship meant for an actual black American, who pretended to be a mother, who pretended to have a black father, who lied about nearly everything about herself was worth an immediate defense by the NAACP. According to their press release: “The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal’s advocacy record.”

All across America , abortionists have established a pattern of injuring and sometimes killing women in their abortion centers, many times in violation of a number of state civil and criminal laws.

Most of the women injured in these abortion centers that ignore the laws are Black and brown. More Black women are going into these centers alive and fertile and many come out infertile due to substandard medical practices. Some do not come out alive.

Davis has documented the horrific way abortion providers treat women and specifically women of color.

Recently, a Black women was left to bleed for hours inside a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic before being transferred to a hospital. The 24-year-old women later died from the botched abortion. Although Planned Parenthood was sued by the family, calls for a criminal investigation by authorities into her death went unheard.

Davis says that the gatekeepers across the country are not doing their job of enforcing laws regarding abortion facilities and she believes the reason is racially motivated.

“I believe that the population control agenda wants to control the birthrate of women of color so they are turning a blind eye to criminal and civil violations at abortion clinics,” Davis stated.

Davis points to Kermit Gosnell and the way the state of Pennsylvania ignored what was occurring inside his House of Horrors abortion clinic.

She says that even though some abortion doctors are Black, it’s just part of Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project which sought to use Blacks to help in her eugenics agenda.

The Selma Project rally has also been sponsored by the National Black Pro-life Coalition, CEC for Life, and The Radiance Foundation.

The group chose Selma to shine a light on what is occurring nationwide.

“Just like Selma and Bloody Sunday are a picture of all that was wrong with Jim Crow in America; our event hopes to shed light on all that is wrong with abortion in America,” Davis points out.

In addition to Davis, speakers at The Selma Project event include Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Star Parker founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Ryan Bomberger co-founder of The Radiance Foundation which just won a free speech lawsuit against the NAACP, and Dr. Freda Bush an OBGYN from the state of Mississippi.

Fr. Frank Pavone national director of Priests for Life and co-host of the pro-life show, Life Talk TV along with Fr. Terry Gensemer will also speak.

The rally will take place on Juneteenth, (June 19, 2015) and a march across the Pettus Bridge will follow on June 20th.

Davis said that one of the main things on their agenda is to spend a lot of time in prayer on behalf of their community and the nation.

She said speakers will address how the abortion industry is literally getting away with murder and the real civil rights movement of today which she said is to defend the right to life of the unborn child.

This week, the NAACP lost a trademark infringement lawsuit against a community organization which used the NAACP’s acronym in a parody to describe their support for abortion and Planned Parenthood.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lawsuit was filed after The Radiance Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about social issues from a Christian perspective and co-founded by Ryan Bomberger, published an article at the website LifeNews.com online entitled “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” which criticized the NAACP’s stance on abortion.

Apparently, to the NAACP, using their acronym in political satire rises to the level of trademark infringement.

“This lawsuit should be shocking to any American who values truth and the First Amendment,” said Bomberger at the time the lawsuit was filed.

But, Bomberger did not stand alone in being on the receiving end of an NAACP trademark infringement lawsuit.

You might be interested to know, that the NAACP once sued their sister organization under the same claim of trademark infringement.

In 1985, The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., won a court case against the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) for trademark infringement, according to a Federal Court of Appeals. The case overruled the decision of a federal judge in 1983.

The court found that the NAACP began the Legal Defense Fund using the initials NAACP since 1939 but the organization had become too dependent over the years. That was where they went wrong.

Apparently, the NAACP created a monster and when tensions emerged in the 1960’s they went to court, charging their own created wing of trademark infringement.

As they always say, follow the money and what the NAACP said the Defense Fund did was infringe on their fund-raising.

The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit reversed a District Court decision and ruled that the two organizations, like quarreling family members, must continue to share the NAACP initials with which they were born. The suit was later dismissed.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Thankfully, in the Radiance Foundation case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the NAACP did not have actionable claims for trademark infringement and Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s marks to criticize their abortion support falls squarely within the exceptions to trademark dilution specifically included in the Lanham Act to avoid encroaching on free speech rights.

“In the context of trademark infringement, the Lanham Act’s purpose, as noted, is to protect consumers from misleading uses of marks by competitors,” the decision states.

The decision also points out that a trademark “only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good will against the sale of another’s product as his.”

NAACP had held that because Radiance had a donate button on their website they were using the image for goods and services.

But, the appeals court wrote, “When the “use of the trademark does not imply sponsorship or endorsement of the product because the mark is used only to describe the thing, rather than to identify its source,” restricting speech does not serve the purpose of the Lanham Act.

“Indeed, criticism or parody of a mark holder would be difficult indeed without using the mark. Trademark protections exist neither to allow companies to protect themselves from criticism nor to permit them to “control language.”

An appeals court has ruled in favor of a Black pro-life organization which parodied the NAACP to expose their stance on abortion.

“WE WIN!!!!” those are the words of Ryan Bomberger founder of the Radiance Foundation regarding his free speech lawsuit filed by the NAACP.

“4th Circuit Court of Appeals rules, unanimously, in our favor! This is a huge win for the First Amendment. The NAACP tried to crush our right to free speech but truth and justice prevailed,” Bomberger posted today.

The lawsuit, initially filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, better known by its acronym “NAACP” against Bomberger began after The Radiance Foundation, an organization Bomberger co-founded, published an article online entitled “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” which criticized the NAACP’s stance on abortion.

The Radiance Foundation is a nonprofit organization focused on educating and influencing the public about issues impacting society. Radiance addresses social issues from a Christian perspective. It uses as its platform two websites, TheRadianceFoundation.org and TooManyAborted.com, where it posts articles on topics such as race relations, diversity, fatherlessness, and the impact of abortion on the black community.

The article, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” was posted by Radiance, and then picked up by Life News, exposing the NAACP’s ties to Planned Parenthood.

Shortly after the NAACP began to receive criticism for its position on abortion.

Though the NAACP has often claimed to be neutral on abortion, Radiance maintains that the NAACP’s actions actually demonstrate support for the practice.

According to Life News, following the piece, the NAACP sent Bomberger, the Chief Creative Officer of the Radiance Foundation, and LifeNews a threatening letter claiming infringement on its name and logo for including it in the opinion column.

The letter, accused Bomberger and the Radiance Foundation, of “trademark infringement” and stated that while “you are certainly entitled to express your viewpoint, you cannot do so in connection with a name that infringes on the NAACP’s rights.”

A court then ruled that The Radiance Foundation engaged in trademark infringement after doing nothing more than posting an article online that parodied the NAACP’s name.

The Radiance Foundation, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) , then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court, and in return, the NAACP filed counter-claims of “trademark infringement, dilution and confusion” for parodying the organization’s name in what the group describes as, “the NAACP’s documented pro-abortion position and actions.”

After a bench trial, the district court found for the NAACP on all counterclaims and denied declaratory relief to Radiance. The district court issued a permanent injunction “against any use [by Radiance] of ‘National Association for the Abortion of Colored People’ that creates a likelihood of confusion or dilution. However, it declined to award any damages or attorney’s fees, as it found the NAACP had failed to make the case that they were warranted.

In the latest decision, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the NAACP does not have actionable claims for trademark infringement here, and Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s marks falls squarely within the exceptions to trademark dilution specifically included in the Lanham Act to avoid encroaching on free speech rights.

“In the context of trademark infringement, the Lanham Act’s purpose, as noted, is to protect consumers from misleading uses of marks by competitors,” the decision states.

The decision also points out that a trademark “only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good
will against the sale of another’s product as his.”

NAACP had held that because Radiance had a donate button on their website they were using the image for goods and services.

But, the appeals court wrote, “When the “use of the trademark does not imply sponsorship or endorsement of the product because the mark is used only to describe the thing, rather than to identify its source,” restricting speech does not serve the purpose of the Lanham Act.

“Indeed, criticism or parody of a mark holder would be difficult indeed without using the mark. Trademark protections exist neither to allow companies to protect themselves from criticism nor to permit them to “control language.”

In finding that Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s marks was “in connection with” goods or services, the appeals court ruled that the district court erred in several respects, pointing out that Radiance used the NAACP’s marks only in the title and body of an article criticizing the NAACP.

The Appeals Court Wrote:

Although present on the article page, the Donate button was off to the side and did not itself use the NAACP’s marks in any way. The billboard campaign was displayed on a different page altogether. A visitor likely would not perceive the use of the NAACP’s marks in the article as being in connection with those transactional components of the website. It is important not to lose perspective. The article was just one piece of each Radiance website’s content, which was comprised of articles, videos, and multimedia advocacy materials. That the protected marks appear somewhere in the content of a website that includes transactional components is not alone enough to satisfy the “in connection with” element. To say it was would come too close to an absolute rule that any social issues commentary with any transactional component in the neighborhood enhanced the commentator’s risk of Lanham Act liability.

The court addressed the issue of “confusion” that the Radiance parody of the NAACP caused as one over policy and not over goods, when it wrote, “trademark infringement is not designed to protect mark holders from consumer confusion about their positions on political or social issues. The evidence of “actual confusion” relied on by the district court consisted of phone calls to the NAACP by people who took issue with the NAACP supporting abortion. “[I]ndignation is not confusion,” at least not as pertains to trademark infringement, and at best the calls demonstrated confusion as to the NAACP’s policy positions rather than any good or service. Policy stances are neither goods nor services, though the means of conveying them may be.”

The appeals court continued, “it is not immediately apparent how someone would confuse an article which is strongly critical of an organization with the organization itself. The mark in this case was used primarily to identify the NAACP as the object of Radiance’s criticism, resembling a descriptive or nominative fair use albeit by employing a modified version of the name.”

As for the free speech aspects of Radiance’s parody of the NAACP the court writes:

Whatever the label affixed to the article, Radiance’s twist on the famous moniker follows in the same vein as articles that refer to the NRA as the “National Republican Association” or the ACLU as the “Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.”

Radiance’s ploy was nonetheless effective at conveying sharply what it was that Radiance wished to say. The implications for the likelihood of confusion factors are thus obvious: parody or satire or critical opinion generally may be more effective if the mark is strong and the satirical or critical version is similar to the original. The critical message conveyed by the satirical mark itself and in the commentary that follows ensures that no confusion about the source of the commentary will last, if in fact it is generated at all.

In this case, the title related to and conveyed the subject of the article: the NAACP and Radiance’s views of its alleged stance on abortion. The use of the satirical modification of the true NAACP name was designed, as many titles are, to be eye-catching and provocative in a manner that induces the reader to continue on. We cannot find that use of the NAACP marks in the title of the Radiance article created a likelihood of confusion as to the piece’s authorship or affiliation.

The court then ruled in favor of Radiance writing, “In sum, and for the aforementioned reasons, the plaintiff’s expression in no way infringed upon or diluted defendant’s trademark rights. We hereby vacate the district court’s injunction and remand with directions that the defendant’s Lanham Act counterclaims be dismissed.”

Ryan Bomberger says that now that the legal wranglings are over, he plans to continue to call the NAACP out on their stance regarding abortion.

“What an upside down world,” Ryan Bomberger told Life Dynamics in response to the decision.

“In 2015 it’s radical to believe that every human life has purpose, and that we’re all equal. Along the way, the NAACP stopped believing this which would explain why they would spend over half a million suing us for accurately parodying their name: The National Association for the Abortion of Colored People. The U.S. 4th Circuit stopped that assault of the First Amendment and ruled in our favor. Not only will we continue to parody the NAACP’s name, we’ll continue relentlessly calling them out for supporting the violence of abortion and (the abject failure of) liberalism.”

“We are incredibly grateful to ADF and our attorney, Chuck Allen, for defending what the NAACP claims to protect: our most basic civil rights,” Bomberger added.

In the documentary film, Maafa21, Life Dynamics also discusses the NAACP’s attitudes on abortion detailing how the organization tried to hide and prevent their convention goers from hearing about the abortion connection to black genocide.

One witness interviewed in the film states that ironically, the NAACP even went to the extent of using buses to block their demonstrations about black genocide in front of Cobal Hall.

“The irony never ends—the nation’s second oldest civil rights group suing a black man for exercising his second most basic civil right—the freedom of speech, ” Ryan Bomberger, founder of the Radiance Foundation.

In 1985, The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., won a court case against the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) for trademark infringement, according to a Federal Court of Appeals. The case overruled the decision of a federal judge in 1983.

The court found that the NAACP began the Legal Defense Fund using the initials NAACP since 1939 but the organization had become too dependent over the years. That was where they went wrong.

Apparently, the NAACP created a monster and when tensions emerged in the 1960’s they went to court, charging their own created wing of trademark infringement.

As they always say, follow the money and what the NAACP said the Defense Fund did was infringe on their fund-raising.

So, it is no shock that if the NAACP would sue it’s own branch it would go after an outside Black organization which used it’s initials in a parody.

Enter the Radiance Foundation.

In January 2013, Radiance, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about social issues from a Christian perspective, posted an article on two of its websites critical of the NAACP’s position on abortion and its support of Planned Parenthood.

After the article, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” was posted by Radiance, and then picked up by the news site Life News, the NAACP received complaints about its position on abortion.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Allow me to paint the picture as it is unfolding, if complaints arise then donations may go down i.e. follow the money!

In response, the NAACP sent a cease-and-desist letter to Radiance, threatening trademark infringement litigation if Radiance refused to comply with the NAACP’s demands.

In April, a court ruled that The Radiance Foundation engaged in trademark infringement after doing nothing more than posting an article online that parodied the NAACP’s name.

The Radiance Foundation then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court, and in return, the NAACP has filed counter-claims of “trademark infringement, dilution and confusion” for parodying the organization’s name in what the group describes as, “the NAACP’s documented pro-abortion position and actions.”

“This lawsuit should be shocking to any American who values truth and the First Amendment,” explains Bomberger who is a citizen journalist and Emmy Award-winning creative professional. “The irony is painful. The NAACP is suing me—a black man—for exercising my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech.”

In other words, the full multimillion dollar NAACP organization is going after one Black man because he dared to call them out on abortion.

Unfortunately, in the initial hearing, Judge Raymond Jackson found Radiance guilty, concluding in a 52-page opinion, that “The NAACP has no formal or official position or policy regarding abortion.”

“This announcement was followed by the NAACP’s participation in a Planned Parenthood DC abortion rally protesting the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Since then, the NAACP’s actions have been inarguably pro-abortion,” Radiance Foundation writes in their press release.

According to Bomberger, “There is no question about the NAACP’s position on abortion. They passed a resolution at their annual convention in 2004 erroneously entitled: “The March For Life”.

The document Bomberger published is interesting considering that the annual pro-life march is also called a “March for Life.”

But…I digress.

Bomberger cites other areas where he believes the Judge ignored evidence in the case:

The judge wrongly claimed on page 41 of the Order: “The NAACP has intentionally refrained from taking a stance on abortion, and certainly has not been alleged to advocate for the abortion of people of color.”

Never mind the NAACP not only promoted the pro-abortion “March for Women’s Lives”, it led from the stage.

Former NAACP President Julian Bond was a featured speaker at event as well as the keynote speaker at a fund-raising dinner for NARAL, the same year, where he praised the fact that “black women exercise this precious [abortion] at rates far exceeding their percentage of the population.”

Never mind Planned Parenthood is a corporate sponsor of the NAACP’s annual conventions.

Never mind the NAACP filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, which banned sex-selection and race-based abortions.

Never mind the recent president of the NAACP, Benjamin Jealous, was the keynote speaker at a Planned Parenthood of Southeast Georgia fundraiser where one could purchase a $1000-a-Margaret-Sanger-Founders-Circle package to help raise money for the political arm of the abortion chain

.

Bomberger and his Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are not the only ones who believe parody is free speech and not trademark infringement.

In fact the ACLU, which is generally pro-abortion has filed a brief on The Radiance Foundation’s behalf.

Their brief was summarized by Harvard Journal’s, Jolt Digest, which wrote, “the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit for the Radiance Foundation, Inc. In its brief, the EFF and the ACLU urge that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”.

Citing the review in part:

Building on three prior Circuit Court cases holdings that “artistic or political use of a trademark” and “literary titles” do not violate the Lanham Act “so long as the level of relevance to the underlying work is merely . . . above zero,” the EFF and the ACLU argue that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not infringing on a confusion theory.

The brief reasons that “Radiance’s use of NAACP’s trademark in the title of an article was directly relevant to the article’s political goal and did not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the article .”

The EFF and the ACLU then argues that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not trademark dilution because it was a “noncommercial use” defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3) and thus exempted from Lanham Act action. Citing previous court decisions, the brief explained that the trademark dilution cause of action is limited to commercial advertising and excludes fully protected speech in newspapers, magazines, films, songs and similar media. Thus Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s trademark to criticize the practices of the organization and to comment on how abortion affects the African-American community is exempted under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii).

“No trademark law overrides the First Amendment freedom to comment upon the positions, policies and activities of groups like the NAACP. This type of speech has a very long history of protection,” said Charles M. Allen with the law firm Goodman, Allen, & Filetti and one of nearly 2,500 private attorneys allied with ADF. “The Radiance Foundation merely expressed its opinion of the NAACP’s activities in an article. The NAACP cannot use trademark law to shield itself from criticism by denying others the right to use its name when they are expressing their opinions.”

“I believe this trial in life will have a happy ending. Our hope is that truth and justice prevail and that our guaranteed, precious right to free speech is protected. Even more importantly, we hope that so-called “leaders” in the civil rights movement have their consciences awakened to realize no right is more valuable and in need of defense than the foundational Right to Life,” Bomberger said.

Will free speech prevail?

We will soon see as the case is now before three justices at the Fourth Circuit. Oral arguments will be heard Wednesday, March 25th.